The disciples were turning people away. People had brought children to Jesus, hoping He would touch them, but the disciples rebuked those bringing them. Jesus was much displeased. He called for the children to come, took them in His arms, laid His hands upon them, and blessed them.
There is something beautiful in that scene—and something sobering. The men walking closest to Jesus could still act against His wishes. Their place beside Him gave them no authority to overrule Him. He corrected them in front of the very people they had rebuked.
A person may carry the name, hold the office, and know the words while doing something the Teacher condemns.
The name on the building cannot make the wrongdoing holy.
That distinction matters when religious authority is offered as a defense for conduct involving children. Sahih al-Bukhari 5133 records Aisha saying that Muhammad married her when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. The question becomes especially serious when that reported marriage is presented as permission for child marriage.
If someone answers questions about that justification by pointing to people who have claimed to be Christian and then abused children, the original question remains unanswered. Condemning wrongdoing in another community, whatever religion is practiced there, cannot establish permission for comparable harm in one’s own community. The conduct being condemned across the room still needs an answer on one's own side of that room.
Abuse deserves condemnation whoever commits it. That includes someone invoking Muhammad’s reported marriage as religious permission, someone claiming Christianity while violating Jesus’ teaching, and someone professing no religion at all. The people harmed need protection, and those responsible must be held accountable. Their suffering deserves more than being tossed back and forth in a religious argument.
A claim to Christianity does not, by itself, establish genuine faith. Someone may profess a faith he never held, or someone who believes may act terribly against what he professes. Neither possibility turns child abuse into Christian teaching. Anyone claiming to follow Jesus must have his conduct measured against Jesus’ words and example.
When someone claims to be a Christian and then abuses a child, he betrays the very command to love that child. A church that conceals the abuse compounds the betrayal. Neither can find permission for it in Jesus’ welcome of children or His warning about causing little believers to stumble.
They have acted against the authority they claim to represent.
A different argument is being made when Muhammad’s reported marriage is offered as an example that makes child marriage religiously permissible. The person making that argument is claiming authorization through the founder’s conduct. If he further claims that Allah approved it, that claim also requires support. The marriage report alone does not establish it.
One defense appeals to a religious example as permission. The wrongdoing of someone claiming Christianity supplies no equivalent permission from Jesus. His teaching remains the standard against which that person’s conduct is judged.
Another person’s guilt cannot make a justification sound.
This distinction concerns the claim being defended. It gives no reason to assign that defense to every Muslim or to excuse anyone claiming Christianity who harms a child. Each person remains responsible for what he believes, teaches, and does.
A child should never become ammunition in a religious quarrel.
The child’s protection matters more than either side’s appetite for winning. Exposing wrongdoing serves a worthy purpose when it brings the harm into the light. Using someone else’s wrongdoing to shelter a favored claim leaves the harm standing.
Someone may try to shelter child marriage and the harm it causes beneath a claim of religious permission, invoking Muhammad’s example and claiming Allah’s approval. The claim does not settle the question. It is precisely what requires examination.
No equivalent permission for child abuse can be drawn from Jesus’ example. His teaching points in the opposite direction: He commanded love, welcomed children, and warned of grave judgment for causing little believers to stumble. Someone claiming Christianity who abuses a child acts against that teaching.
Even His own disciples received correction when they stood in the children’s way. Jesus rebuked them and took the children in His arms. They could not turn their position beside Him into permission to act against His wishes.
His mercy still calls sinners to repentance. Forgiveness never turns cruelty into something acceptable, and an offender’s need for mercy cannot become a demand that a child be placed at risk again. Accountability, protection, and the consequences of a crime remain.
The disciples had tried to turn the children away.
Jesus took them in His arms.
Anyone claiming to represent Him must answer to the Savior who did that.
“Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” —Romans 13:10
—Jeff Wager
#WagerEssays #TheEssayDepot #WhatGodSays #Apologetics #Theology